This is old news.

He announced this achievement months ago.

It takes far more machines than this to produce enough enriched material for weapons.

Why are you working to whip up anti-Iranian sentiment?

JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO, Canada

"Ahmadinajad is a very, very dangerous man. He should not be in charge of Iran."

He is not in charge of Iran. The mullahs have all of the real power and right now they have a moderate as their head. They have the power and will smash Ahmadinajad if they feel that he is out of control. Also, who are these "Western Experts"? I prefer a sane and known person such as Dr ElBaradei, who has been trying to stop the hysterical and insanely inaccurate information that the US has been spewing to start another war. I challenge them to name these so called "experts". Cheney, is that you?

Patty Kachersky, Golden, Colorado

Has it occured to anyone that a war might actually be in Ahmedinejad's best interests? Get his people to forget their gas and food shortages and rally around the flag, that sort of thing? He's making the same gamble that Saddam did; that 'revelations' and bluster over WMD programs can buy him time (with his own people) and leverage (with other governments). Let's not make the same mistake we did with Saddam, we don't have that many troops.

Remember the words of one of your own authors, Douglas Adams: Don't Panic.

Michael, Pueblo, Colorado, US

Ahmadinajad is a very, very dangerous man. He should not be in charge of Iran.

Robert Cameron, Vancouver, Canada

Correction, Julia Iskandar - the second-last thing we need is another war. The most-last thing we need is Iran having a nuclear bomb.

Mike, Sydney, Australia

The idea that Iran is NOT attempting to build an Atomic Weapon is quite frankly preposterous, and all those individuals who sit and pontificate about how wrong we are to want to prevent a bunch of primitive islamic radicals from gaining access to them will have their smug smiles wiped off their faces when the middle east inevitably goes up in a puff of smoke.

Douglas Newell, Saltcoats, UK

All the niegh sayers who do not believe that radioactive or radiological weapons will not be used either in the Middle East or on the streets of London one day should hope and pray that the IAEA have a technical not political agenda when it comes to Iran.

Iran has proved in the past it is adept at distancing its self from terrorist activities. Only today warrants were issued by Interpol for members of the Iranian Revelutionary Gaurd for the bombing of a Jewish Community Centre in Buenos Aries. If Iran is only anti Israel and not anti Jewish why hit a Jewish Community Centre in South America? I just hope when Europe and the IAEA turn a blind eye to Irans nuclear aspirations they have got it right.

Simon, London, UK

"Iran "could have atom bomb in a year"

Didn't they say the same thing 4 years ago?

Anyway the tricky word is "could"

Mohammed, London, UK

Iran announces that Israel should NOT exist, they deny the Holocaust occured.

Iran's intent are clear....yes please Neville Chamberlain may we have more!

.

Hotspur, ATL, USA

All this hue and cries are baseless allegations to prevent Iranian nation from achieving a milestone in technical advancement of enriching Uranium for peaceful purposes. There has never been any evidence that Iran is building or willing to build WMD.
Iran is a signatory to IAEA and has all the rights to pursue it's uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes and based on that treaty all those countries that have WMD are guilty of non compliance with the treaty for not eliminating their own WMD including USA and of course non signatories to the treaty like Israel.

Fonz Hifi, Ottawa,

Yawn, ho hum, how many times have we heard this one before ? How are they going to deliver it on the US - on the back of a truck ? I will tell you whats more dangerous than Iran having the bomb - lots of small terrorist groups having a dirty bomb. That is the nightmare scenario for the West. Iran knows very well what will happen to it if it uses its nuclear weapons against the West. But it will give it comfort. Note the US response once North Korea set off its device. All back to the negotiating table. Perhaps this is what Iran wants. In any case, it is any sovereign nations right to have the means to protect itself, specially with rogue nations like the US making threats against them.

John Taylor, London,

just out of interest, what about Israel? It has WMD, is not a signatery to any norms or agreement. Why the hell is Israel non negotiable as far as the political class is concerned both her and most deffinately in the USA.

L. Hershey, Herts, UK

I can't believe naive insanity of some of these comments. All countries are not created equal, and the underlying question is the long term stability and rationality of the government with nuclear weapons. I feel perfectly comfortable with China, US, UK, France, India, Israel etc... having nuclear weapons while Iran, N. Korea, and Pakistan present deep problems.

If Iran gets the bomb, there is a non-negligible chance (5%? 10% 20%?) that an Iranian bomb eventually goes off in some western city (Paris? New York? Rome?). I hope the posters leaving these naive comments advocating complete inaction.... I hope they understand how radically dangerous their position is.

Matt G, San Francisco, CA

The West should back right off and sort out its own (enormous) environmental and political corruption issues. We do not own the world - although we act like we do and have for too long.

tash, exeter, uk

Iran - a atomic bomb within a year.
That's comforting news.

Jerry Scroggin, Phoenix, Arizona/USA

Iran is as entitled to nukes as the USA or UK. If existing nuclear powers want to prevent other countries obtaining them, they really need to implement a programme to eradicate their own stockpiles as well - immediately!

All that said, Iran has consistently claimed that it is seeking domestic nuclear power, NOT weaponry. Where is the evidence to suggest otherwise?

Alex Mcgregor, Plymouth, UK

Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed on a timetable in August for Tehran to provide answers to outstanding questions over its nuclear programme. In addition, the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is due to publish a report by mid-November.

This is the real message. IAEA can easily detect the radiological signatures of 90% enrichment, as opposed to around 4% used in civilian power generation.

Inflamatory speculation of what Iran may do is only put into the press for reasons of promoting a massive bombardment of Iran for WMD that they do not have and may never have. With oil priced now near $100 per barrel, watch the lights go out on the world economy if the Israel and neocon lobbies get their way.

Meanwhile, Pakistan, source of world terrorism, with actual WMD, spins into chaos. No problem there. Anyone suggesting blasting Pakistan?

tarquinis, Seattle, USA

Don't believe the hype, from either side. We've already been deceived into two wars, the last thing we need is a third.

Julia Iskandar, London, England

Since major powers are always advancing their nuclear strength by day, I hope all other nations (even those tiny independent islands) also someday make their own nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons should be viewed good or bad for all. I think that the whole foundation of the treaty, NPT, collapsed the day major powers refused to implement those lines that spoke of their duty, that they should get rid of their weapons. You can not ignore a part you don't like and embrace the part you like. That is not what the treaty we know of. That is the military imbalance major powers seek to achieve through that treaty. And if Iran is not trustworthy, as they say she is not, Iran will make the bomb in secret even if those known facilities are sealed off. SO what is the sting about those two or three facilities? To confirm this view, please look at India-Pakistan-North Korea or Israel.

Zal Dez, Portland, Oregon, USA